DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination. Claim 1 stands currently amended.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Finality of Office Action
The following is a brief summary description of new ground(s) of rejection (if any) and the reason why those new ground(s) are made necessary by this amendment:
No new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 29 June 2026 have been fully considered and Examiner’s response is as follows:
Applicant remarks page 5 argues:
Claim 1 is not directed towards an abstract idea. Instead, Claim 1 is directed towards a manufacturing method that produces a tangible, physical output. Specifically, Claim 1 provides a specific, tangible output, and specifically, providing a ramp surface that operates near separation for an inflow without producing flow separation.
This argument is unpersuasive.
The alleged manufacture is recited in claim 1 as “providing the ramp surface” with the determined abstract idea design result. Providing does not limit the manufacture to any particular manufacturing steps or limit the manufacture to any particular manufacturing machines. MPEP §2106.05(f) outlines several factors to consider on whether a claim merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea. (1) “the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.” Id. Here, “providing” does not identify any details of how the manufacturing is done. (2) “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.” Id. Here, “providing” does not link the alleged manufacturing to any machinery at all. (3) “The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.” Id. Here, no particularity is recited at all regarding the physical manufacture. All factors outlined in MPEP §2106.05(f) weigh towards a finding that the claim merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea.
Applicant remarks page 5 further argues:
This represents a technical improvement to a concrete problem. In particular, as explained by Applicant, conventional design methods "require relatively complex computational fluid dynamic ("CFD") simulations to identify one or more ramps that will avoid separated flow under specified inflow conditions" which are "time consuming and computationally intensive."
This argument is unpersuasive. An improvement to a mathematical concept is not patent eligible subject matter under §101. Accordingly, improvements to simulation calculations and computations as claimed here cannot render a mathematical concept eligible.
Applicant remarks pages 5-6 further argues:
Specifically, similar to Examples 25 and 26, amended Claim 1 is directed towards a method that amounts to significantly more than just a calculation. The elements …. and do not merely recite an equation in isolation, but instead integrate them into a manufacturing method.
This argument is unpersuasive.
Example 25 relates to Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981). In Diehr, the manufacture both recited particular machinery of a rubber press and recited particular operations steps of opening the press. As discussed immediately above, the instant claim 1 has neither factor recited in particularity.
Applicant remarks page 6 further argues:
Like Example 26, amended Claim 1 amounts to significantly more than an equation by providing meaningful limitations to the mathematical relationships and improve aircraft technology.
This argument is unpersuasive.
Example 26 relates to a claim to a physical internal combustion engine analyzed with streamline analysis. There appears no facial similarity with the instant claims and Applicant’s argument here does not identify any specific correspondence between the instant claims and the claim in example 26. Accordingly, Examiner is unpersuaded that example 26 is controlling authority for the instant claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-20 were cancelled. Accordingly, Examiner’s object to duplicate claims is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A method for designing a ramp surface comprising:
determining a flow having a turbulent boundary layer (TBL), the TBL flow having an inflow Reynolds number (ReL), wherein the ramp surface has a length and a height wherein ReL is based on the length, and further wherein the ramp surface has a slope that is everywhere non-positive along the length of the ramp surface relative to the TBL flow at the inflow end of the ramp surface;
dividing the height of the ramp surface by the length of the ramp surface to determine a height-to-length ratio of the ramp surface (
h
~
);
identifying a maximum slope magnitude of the ramp surface;
calculating a maximum normalized slope (
z
^
'
m
a
x
) by dividing the maximum slope magnitude of the ramp surface by the height-to-length ratio of the ramp surface;
calculating a critical ramp slope (
z
^
'
c
r
i
t
) as a linear function of the height-to-length ratio of the ramp surface;
using the critical ramp slope to determine separation of the turbulent boundary layer by determining that the turbulent boundary layer will separate from the ramp surface if the maximum normalized slope is greater than the critical ramp slope, and determining that the turbulent boundary layer will not separate from the ramp surface if the maximum normalized slope is less than the critical ramp slope;
designing the ramp surface to prevent separation of the turbulent boundary layer from the ramp surface; and
Determining the flow of a turbulent boundary layer using numerical analysis is a determination using the respective mathematical relationships and formulae.
Dividing the height by the length is a mathematical calculation to derive the geometric relationship of numerical design values.
Identifying a maximum numerical value of the slope magnitude is a mathematical operation on the numerical slope values.
Calculating a maximum normalized slope as specified is recitation of a mathematical formula in prose.
Calculating a critical ramp slope as a linear function corresponds with further mathematical calculation.
A step of “using” the critical ramp slope to make a determination is at best mere instruction to “apply” the result of the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). However, here the determination being made is itself a mental process evaluation. Deciding the turbulent boundary layer will separate when the maximum normalized slope is greater than the critical ramp slope is a mental process in the form of an evaluation or judgment. The combination of a mathematical calculated result with a mental process is a combination of abstract ideas and remains judicially excepted subject matter.
Designing a ramp surface is a recitation of mental process design steps which encompass evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The combination of a mathematical calculated result with a mental process is a combination of abstract ideas and remains judicially excepted subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
providing the ramp surface that operates relatively near separation for the inflow without producing flow separation.
A step of “providing” the ramp surface is at best mere instruction to “apply” the result of the abstract idea (see MPEP §2106.05(f)).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
The claim(s) recite:
providing the ramp surface that operates relatively near separation for the inflow without producing flow separation.
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(f) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the critical ramp slope is calculated as:
z
^
'
c
r
i
t
=
α
h
~
+
β
, where
α
=
11.82
and
β
=
3.8
.
The recited mathematical formula is an explicit recitation of mathematical subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The method of Claim 1, wherein the ramp surface is convex.
The convexity of the geometric object is a mathematical geometric relationship corresponding with a condition on the slope/shape. A mathematical description of geometric shape is mathematical subject matter in the form of the respective geometric relationship.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 5 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The method of Claim 1, wherein the linear function is independent of the inflow Reynold's number, ReL.
5. The method of Claim 1, wherein the linear function is dependent on the inflow Reynold's number, ReL.
The linear function is a mathematical relationship. Whether or not this mathematical relationship is dependent or independent of the inflow Reynold’s numerical number, the mathematical relationship of the linear function remains mathematical subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 4 and 5 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 4 and 5 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 6 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
6. The method of Claim 1, wherein the critical ramp slope is calculated as:
z
^
'
c
r
i
t
=
α
h
~
R
e
L
γ
+
β
, where
α
=
-
40.06
,
β
=
3.8
, and
γ
=
-
1
10
.
The recited mathematical formula is an explicit recitation of mathematical subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 6 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 7 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. The method of Claim 1, wherein the ramp surface has a slope shape defined by a polynomial function.
The a polynomial function is an explicit recitation of mathematical subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 7 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. The method of Claim 1, wherein the ramp surface has a slope shape determined by one or more Gaussian functions.
A Gaussian function is a mathematical function.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
9. The method of Claim 1, wherein the ramp surface comprises an aerodynamic surface of an aircraft.
The numerical representation of the ramp surface corresponding with an aerodynamic surface of an aircraft is generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a field of use. “[G]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” does “not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here in step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
10. The method of Claim 9, wherein the aerodynamic surface is aft body of a fuselage.
The numerical representation of the ramp surface corresponding with an aft body of a fuselage is generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a field of use. “[G]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” does “not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here in step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
11. The method of Claim 6, wherein the inflow Reynold's number is in the range of 2*105 to 8*105.
The specific numerical range for the numerical value is further recitation of mathematical subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101, set forth in this Office action.
A statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter was previously presented in the office action dated 27 January 2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 10 August 2026
Prosecution Insights